GMAT Essay Topic 468 - The following appeared as part of an article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies. "When scientists finally learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, the regulation of copper mining will become unnecessary. For one thing, since the amount of potentially available copper will no longer be limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits, the problem of overmining will quickly be eliminated altogether. For another, manufacturers will not need to use synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. Thus, since two problems will be settled ? overmining and pollution ? it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining regulation and either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more." Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
Overmining of copper
The argument state about a potential solution to overmining of copper and its related problem. According to the author, when the scientist will learn new method to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, then the regulation of copper mining will not be necessary. Further the problem of overmining as well as pollutiondue to use of synthetic copper substitutes will be solve. Since the manufacture will not use synthetic copper substitutes, whose production create pollutants.Therefore the author has suggested to reduce the funding for mining regulation and either save or reallocate the money where it is needed. But the reasons stated by the author has following flaws
Firstly, the author has assumed that the method developed by the scientist will be a successful one. But this may not be the case. Moreover the author has not provided any evidence of such method being develop. The argument lacks data, figures or any report related to the method. Even there is no evidence to support the progress of the method.
Further the author has assumed that the copper developed from the method will be of same quality as compare to the orginal copper. But the author has not given any evidence to support the claim. Even there is no evidence to show that the cost of copper production through method will be cheaper than from mining. The author has assumed many things in the argument.
Even the author has assumed that after the method has been developed, company will not mine copper. And the problem of overmining of the copper will solve all together. There is no evidence in the argument which will prove the point. The company may not stop mining of the copper even if they can access the method. The method may be costly as compared to the mining. Since the method will involve purchasing of equipments, acquiring land for the plant and hiring people to get involved in the method.
Finally, the uathor has assumed that the method wil not used any substance that may contribute to pollution. According to the author since the manufacture will not use synthetic copper substitute, pollution will reduce. But the method may use substances which will create more pollution. Even the method may create other types of pollution as well. The author. Therefore the author conclusion to reduce the fund for copper mining and allocating the fund somewhere else, is unconvincing.
Hence to strengthen the stimulus, the author should have provided detail information about the method, equipment and substance used in the method. Even the total cost of establishing a plant for the method is also require. Even the author should have provided data or figure to show that the method is efficient compare to the copper mining.